Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Keep spinning idiot. A man that has been dead 150 years has said nothing about me. Time line problems, once again.
Nothing wrong with the time line, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, because what Mr. Lincoln said 150 years ago indisputably proves that your ignorant assertions today are wrong, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
And in true fashion, you are changing the subject to fit your fucked up ideas.
I asked you to name a Confederate state that seceded for reasons NOT including the preservation of slavery and you tried to SWITCH the argument to what the "determining factor" was. Your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass completely failed to prove that the states in question would have seceded were it not for Mr. Lincoln's call to arms, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
That way you can try to blame Lincoln's action. The states in question stated that Mr. Lincoln's call to arms was the reason they seceded, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. That's bullshit. All of the five later seceding slave states had already listed the preservation of slavery as one of their complaints against Lincoln even before he took office. But Mr. Lincoln's call to arms was the reason they stated for seceding, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. Those states had coexisted with the North since the Constitution was ratified in 1789, and they were willing to continue to coexist with the North -- until Mr. Lincoln's call to arms, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
And a "strong pacifist" movements in a state is NOT a legislature or a referendum on secession. The legislatures in at least three states were prohibited from meeting by overt -- the bayonet -- coercion and fraud, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. Those non-slave states never seceded, but you are trying to pretend they were on the side of the Confederates and would have seceded for non-slavery reasons. Because the legislatures were not allowed to meet, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. Now you are just making up an alternate reality to try to win. The historical facts are documented, and it's racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackasses like you who "pretend" those facts do not exist, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
Your precious Confederacy was dominated by racists and dedicated to the preservation of a system of enslavement of people they regarded as inferior. and it cost hundreds of thousands of lives to put an end to the system. Your precious Union was dominated by racists who opportunistically adopted emancipation for economic and military reasons with little true regard for the altruistic reasons you now "pretend" were ascribed as motivation for the war, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
And you rednecks should get down on your knees every day and thank God that Lincoln did what he did. "On your knees" is your favorite position, isn't it, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass?
If he hadn't, slavery would have lasted well into the 1900s. Considering how hard the Confederacy fought, slavery would have lasted several more generations. The hatred and racism was that deeply ingrained.
There would probably be some very elderly people still alive that were born in slavery. And there would be a LOT of people alive whose parents were slaves.
Lincoln spared us that.
BTW, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it ..."
Yours,
A. Lincoln
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Mayor Wood’s Recommendation of the Secession of New York City
Fernando Wood, Mayor of New York City
January 06, 1861
To the Honorable the Common Council:
GENTLEMEN: We are entering upon the public duties of the year under circumstances as unprecedented as they are gloomy and painful to contemplate. The great trading and producing interests of not only the city of New York, but of the entire country, are prostrated by a monetary crisis; and although similar calamities have before befallen us, it is the first time that they have emanated from causes having no other origin than that which may be traced to political disturbances. Truly, may it now be said, “We are in the midst of a revolution bloodless as Yet.” Whether the dreadful alternative implied as probable in the conclusion of this prophetic quotation may be averted, “no human ken can divine.” It is quite certain that the severity of the storm is unexampled in our history, and if the disintegration of the Federal Government, with the consequent destruction of all the material interests of the people shall not follow, it will be owing more to the interposition of Divine Providence, than to the inherent preventive power of our institutions, or the intervention of any other human agency.
It would seem that a dissolution of the Federal Union is inevitable. Having been formed originally on a basis of general and mutual protection, but separate local independence–each State reserving the entire and absolute control of its own domestic affairs, it is evidently impossible to keep them together longer than they deem themselves fairly treated by each other, or longer than the interests, honor and fraternity of the people of the several States are satisfied. Being a Government created by opinion, its continuance is dependent upon the continuance of the sentiment which formed it. It cannot be preserved by coercion or held together by force. A resort to this last dreadful alternative would of itself destroy not only the Government, but the lives and property of the people.
If these forebodings shall be realized, and a separation of the States shall occur, momentous considerations will be presented to the corporate authorities of this city. We must provide for the new relations which will necessarily grow out of the new condition of public affairs.
It will not only be necessary for us to settle the relations which we shall hold to other cities and States, but to establish, if we can, new ones with a portion of our own State. Being the child of the Union, having drawn our sustenance from its bosom, and arisen to our present power and strength through the vigor of our mother–when deprived of her maternal advantages, we must rely upon our own resources and assume a position predicated upon the new phase which public affairs will present, and upon the inherent strength which our geographical, commercial, political, and financial preeminence imparts to us.
With our aggrieved brethren of the Slave States, we have friendly relations and a common sympathy. We have not participated in the warfare upon their constitutional rights or their domestic institutions. While other portions of our State have unfortunately been imbued with the fanatical spirit which actuates a portion of the people of New England, the city of New York has unfalteringly preserved the integrity of its principles of adherence to the compromises of the Constitution and the equal rights of the people of all the States. We have respected the local interests of every section, at no time oppressing, but all the while aiding in the development of the resources of the whole country. Our ships have penetrated to every clime, and so have New York capital, energy and enterprise found their way to every State, and, indeed, to almost every county and town of the American Union. If we have derived sustenance from the Union, so have we in return disseminated blessings for the common benefit of all. Therefore, New York has a right to expect, and should endeavor to preserve a continuance of uninterrupted intercourse with every section.
It is, however, folly to disguise the fact that, judging from the past, New York may have more cause of apprehension from the aggressive legislation of our own State than from external dangers. We have already largely suffered from this cause. For the past five years, our interests and corporate rights have been repeatedly trampled upon. Being an integral portion of the State, it has been assumed, and in effect tacitly admitted on our part by nonresistance, that all political and governmental power over us rested in the State Legislature. Even the common right of taxing ourselves for our own government, has been yielded, and we are not permitted to do so without this authority.
Thus it will be seen that the political connection between the people of the city and the State has been used by the latter to our injury. The Legislature, in which the present partizan majority has the power, has become the instrument by which we are plundered to enrich their speculators, lobby agents, and Abolition politicians. Laws are passed through their malign influence by which, under forms of legal enactment, our burdens have been increased, our substance eaten out, and our municipal liberties destroyed. Self—government, though guaranteed by the State Constitution, and left to every other county and city, has been taken from us by this foreign power, whose dependents have been sent among us to destroy our liberties by subverting our political system.
How we shall rid ourselves of this odious and oppressive connection, it is not for me to determine. It is certain that a dissolution cannot be peacefully accomplished, except by the consent of the Legislature itself. Whether this can be obtained or not, is, in my judgment, doubtful. Deriving so much advantage from its power over the city, it is not probable that a partizan majority will consent to a separation–and the resort to force by violence and revolution must not be thought of for an instant. We have been distinguished as an orderly and law—abiding people. Let us do nothing to forfeit this character, or to add to the present distracted condition of a public affairs.
Much, no doubt, can be said in favor of the justice and policy of a separation. It may be said that secession or revolution in any of the United States would be subversive of all Federal authority, and, so far as the Central Government is concerned, the resolving of the community into its original elements–that, if part of the States form new combinations and Governments, other States may do the same. California and her sisters of the Pacific will no doubt set up an independent Republic and husband their own rich mineral resources. The Western States, equally rich in cereals and other agricultural products, will probably do the same. Then it may be said, why should not New York city, instead of supporting by her contributions in revenue two—thirds of the expenses of the United States, become also equally independent? As a free city, with but nominal duty on imports, her local Government could be supported without taxation upon her people. Thus we could live free from taxes, and have cheap goods nearly duty free. In this she would have the whole and united support of the Southern States, as well as all the other States to whose interests and rights under the Constitution she has always been true.
It is well for individuals or communities to look every danger square in the face, and to meet it calmly and bravely. As dreadful as the severing of the bonds that have hitherto united the States has been in contemplation, it is now apparently a stern and inevitable fact. We have now to meet it with all the consequences, whatever they may be. If the Confederacy is broken up the Government is dissolved, and it behooves every distinct community, as well as every individual, to take care of themselves.
When Disunion has become a fixed and certain fact, why may not New York disrupt the bands which bind her to a venal and corrupt master–to a people and a party that have plundered her revenues, attempted to ruin her and a party that have plundered her revenues, attempted to ruin her commerce, taken away the power of self—government, and destroyed the Confederacy of which she was the proud Empire City? Amid the gloom which the present and prospective condition of things must cast over the country, New York, as a Free City, may shed the only light and hope of a future reconstruction of our once blessed Confederacy.
But I am not prepared to recommend the violence implied in these views. In stating this argument in favor of freedom, “peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must,” let me not be misunderstood. The redress can be found only in appeals to the magnanimity of the people of the whole State. The events of the past two months have no doubt effected a change in the popular sentiment of the State and National politics. This change may bring us the desired relief, and we may be able to obtain a repeal of the law to which I have referred, and a consequent restoration of our corporate rights.
Again, there's nothing wrong with the time line, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, because what Mr. Lincoln said 150 years ago indisputably proves that your ignorant assertions today are wrong, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it ..."
Yours,
A. Lincoln
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Mayor Wood’s Recommendation of the Secession of New York City
Fernando Wood, Mayor of New York City
January 06, 1861
To the Honorable the Common Council:
GENTLEMEN: We are entering upon the public duties of the year under circumstances as unprecedented as they are gloomy and painful to contemplate. The great trading and producing interests of not only the city of New York, but of the entire country, are prostrated by a monetary crisis; and although similar calamities have before befallen us, it is the first time that they have emanated from causes having no other origin than that which may be traced to political disturbances. Truly, may it now be said, “We are in the midst of a revolution bloodless as Yet.” Whether the dreadful alternative implied as probable in the conclusion of this prophetic quotation may be averted, “no human ken can divine.” It is quite certain that the severity of the storm is unexampled in our history, and if the disintegration of the Federal Government, with the consequent destruction of all the material interests of the people shall not follow, it will be owing more to the interposition of Divine Providence, than to the inherent preventive power of our institutions, or the intervention of any other human agency.
It would seem that a dissolution of the Federal Union is inevitable. Having been formed originally on a basis of general and mutual protection, but separate local independence–each State reserving the entire and absolute control of its own domestic affairs, it is evidently impossible to keep them together longer than they deem themselves fairly treated by each other, or longer than the interests, honor and fraternity of the people of the several States are satisfied. Being a Government created by opinion, its continuance is dependent upon the continuance of the sentiment which formed it. It cannot be preserved by coercion or held together by force. A resort to this last dreadful alternative would of itself destroy not only the Government, but the lives and property of the people.
If these forebodings shall be realized, and a separation of the States shall occur, momentous considerations will be presented to the corporate authorities of this city. We must provide for the new relations which will necessarily grow out of the new condition of public affairs.
It will not only be necessary for us to settle the relations which we shall hold to other cities and States, but to establish, if we can, new ones with a portion of our own State. Being the child of the Union, having drawn our sustenance from its bosom, and arisen to our present power and strength through the vigor of our mother–when deprived of her maternal advantages, we must rely upon our own resources and assume a position predicated upon the new phase which public affairs will present, and upon the inherent strength which our geographical, commercial, political, and financial preeminence imparts to us.
With our aggrieved brethren of the Slave States, we have friendly relations and a common sympathy. We have not participated in the warfare upon their constitutional rights or their domestic institutions. While other portions of our State have unfortunately been imbued with the fanatical spirit which actuates a portion of the people of New England, the city of New York has unfalteringly preserved the integrity of its principles of adherence to the compromises of the Constitution and the equal rights of the people of all the States. We have respected the local interests of every section, at no time oppressing, but all the while aiding in the development of the resources of the whole country. Our ships have penetrated to every clime, and so have New York capital, energy and enterprise found their way to every State, and, indeed, to almost every county and town of the American Union. If we have derived sustenance from the Union, so have we in return disseminated blessings for the common benefit of all. Therefore, New York has a right to expect, and should endeavor to preserve a continuance of uninterrupted intercourse with every section.
It is, however, folly to disguise the fact that, judging from the past, New York may have more cause of apprehension from the aggressive legislation of our own State than from external dangers. We have already largely suffered from this cause. For the past five years, our interests and corporate rights have been repeatedly trampled upon. Being an integral portion of the State, it has been assumed, and in effect tacitly admitted on our part by nonresistance, that all political and governmental power over us rested in the State Legislature. Even the common right of taxing ourselves for our own government, has been yielded, and we are not permitted to do so without this authority.
Thus it will be seen that the political connection between the people of the city and the State has been used by the latter to our injury. The Legislature, in which the present partizan majority has the power, has become the instrument by which we are plundered to enrich their speculators, lobby agents, and Abolition politicians. Laws are passed through their malign influence by which, under forms of legal enactment, our burdens have been increased, our substance eaten out, and our municipal liberties destroyed. Self—government, though guaranteed by the State Constitution, and left to every other county and city, has been taken from us by this foreign power, whose dependents have been sent among us to destroy our liberties by subverting our political system.
How we shall rid ourselves of this odious and oppressive connection, it is not for me to determine. It is certain that a dissolution cannot be peacefully accomplished, except by the consent of the Legislature itself. Whether this can be obtained or not, is, in my judgment, doubtful. Deriving so much advantage from its power over the city, it is not probable that a partizan majority will consent to a separation–and the resort to force by violence and revolution must not be thought of for an instant. We have been distinguished as an orderly and law—abiding people. Let us do nothing to forfeit this character, or to add to the present distracted condition of a public affairs.
Much, no doubt, can be said in favor of the justice and policy of a separation. It may be said that secession or revolution in any of the United States would be subversive of all Federal authority, and, so far as the Central Government is concerned, the resolving of the community into its original elements–that, if part of the States form new combinations and Governments, other States may do the same. California and her sisters of the Pacific will no doubt set up an independent Republic and husband their own rich mineral resources. The Western States, equally rich in cereals and other agricultural products, will probably do the same. Then it may be said, why should not New York city, instead of supporting by her contributions in revenue two—thirds of the expenses of the United States, become also equally independent? As a free city, with but nominal duty on imports, her local Government could be supported without taxation upon her people. Thus we could live free from taxes, and have cheap goods nearly duty free. In this she would have the whole and united support of the Southern States, as well as all the other States to whose interests and rights under the Constitution she has always been true.
It is well for individuals or communities to look every danger square in the face, and to meet it calmly and bravely. As dreadful as the severing of the bonds that have hitherto united the States has been in contemplation, it is now apparently a stern and inevitable fact. We have now to meet it with all the consequences, whatever they may be. If the Confederacy is broken up the Government is dissolved, and it behooves every distinct community, as well as every individual, to take care of themselves.
When Disunion has become a fixed and certain fact, why may not New York disrupt the bands which bind her to a venal and corrupt master–to a people and a party that have plundered her revenues, attempted to ruin her and a party that have plundered her revenues, attempted to ruin her commerce, taken away the power of self—government, and destroyed the Confederacy of which she was the proud Empire City? Amid the gloom which the present and prospective condition of things must cast over the country, New York, as a Free City, may shed the only light and hope of a future reconstruction of our once blessed Confederacy.
But I am not prepared to recommend the violence implied in these views. In stating this argument in favor of freedom, “peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must,” let me not be misunderstood. The redress can be found only in appeals to the magnanimity of the people of the whole State. The events of the past two months have no doubt effected a change in the popular sentiment of the State and National politics. This change may bring us the desired relief, and we may be able to obtain a repeal of the law to which I have referred, and a consequent restoration of our corporate rights.
Again, there's nothing wrong with the time line, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, because what Mr. Lincoln said 150 years ago indisputably proves that your ignorant assertions today are wrong, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
More stupid Confederate revisionism piled higher and deeper.
A quote from Lincoln from 1862 occurred AFTER secession. Time line problem, you ignorant child.
And WHAT does the editorial prove - except that no one listened to the writer because NY City never seceded. How stupid are you?
And I stated that slavery preservation was "A" reason for secession for EVERY Confederate state.
You have tried repeatedly to change the argument to what was "THE" reason for secession. Naturally, you want to pick the last occurring one (Lincoln's actions) as THE reason for secession - as if that somehow erases the slavery rationale.
It doesn't. Whether or not the last 5 states would have seceded eventually even if Lincoln had NOT stopped secession is a matter of opinion - not fact. I think that as soon as the Republicans tried to repeal slavery, those last five states would have seceded in short order. There was no way Virginia, for example, would stay in once there was an amendment to eliminate slavery.
But I deliberately did NOT want to get into an argument over opinions because you like to state yours like they are facts. Because you are a sociopath.
It is, however, a FACT that every state that seceded cited preservation of slavery as "A" reason for seceding. There is no "opinion" wiggle room there.
Seems like a few folks in the south haven't quite figured out that the civil war ended recently.
Seems a few Good Ol' Bubbas think being a slave trader, mass murderer, and KKK key figure are all GOOD things, and represent what we should commemorate by naming schools after them.
More stupid Confederate revisionism piled higher and deeper.
A quote from Lincoln from 1862 occurred AFTER secession. Time line problem, you ignorant child. A quote from Lincoln in 1862 that occurred AFTER secession -- and after more than a year of war -- proving that the war was STILL NOT about emancipation, you deflecting, lying, racist dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
And WHAT does the editorial prove - except that no one listened to the writer because NY City never seceded. How stupid are you?
And I stated that slavery preservation was "A" reason for secession for EVERY Confederate state.
You have tried repeatedly to change the argument to what was "THE" reason for secession. Naturally, you want to pick the last occurring one (Lincoln's actions) as THE reason for secession - as if that somehow erases the slavery rationale.
It doesn't. Whether or not the last 5 states would have seceded eventually even if Lincoln had NOT stopped secession is a matter of opinion - not fact. I think that as soon as the Republicans tried to repeal slavery, those last five states would have seceded in short order. There was no way Virginia, for example, would stay in once there was an amendment to eliminate slavery.
But I deliberately did NOT want to get into an argument over opinions because you like to state yours like they are facts. Because you are a sociopath.
It is, however, a FACT that every state that seceded cited preservation of slavery as "A" reason for seceding. There is no "opinion" wiggle room there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
He doesn't have an opinion ExNYer.
He only has reactions.
Should have listened to the disclaimers while watching the nightly news...
Meanwhile, you're the dumb-fuck golem jackass whistling "dicksies"!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
BTW -- IBIdiot is closing in on a MONTH LONG MELTDOWN.
You're the dumb-fuck golem jackass imbibing only your morning psychotropic Geritol cocktails, you dumb-fuck golem jackass.
Seems like a few folks in the south haven't quite figured out that the civil war ended recently.
Seems a few Good Ol' Bubbas think being a slave trader, mass murderer, and KKK key figure are all GOOD things, and represent what we should commemorate by naming schools after them.
Glad I don't live in Florida any more.
I really don't think this has much to do with anything (which will rankle those who are always opposed) but I'm interested in the "mass murderer" tag. Is this because he was a general who commanded troops in battle. Troops who may or may not have gotten the word of the surrender of an enemey at Fort Pillow. Now you could make the claim that he was a war criminal but I point out the Battle of Groton in the Revolutionary War. A surrender did not become common knowledge during the battle and a massacre ensued of Americans by British soldiers.
Completely off the subject like I said but I had to put in my two cents. Too many people were slave owners that were all painted with the same brush. For the simple minded, this is not an excuse or justification for slavery but trying to get people to look at the 19th center world through 21st century eyes.
Yes, my mass murderer comment was referring to Ft Pillow.
Whether or not he was morally guilty none of us will actually know. The reality is hundreds were killed after they had been surrendered. Whether he knew or didn't; whether his troops knew or didn't; either way as the commander he owns some of the guilt--and whether that guilt is small or major, either way I find it pretty disgusting to memorialize people like that.
I don't find it hugely different than naming a PA school after JoePa. It shouldn't be happening.
A quote from Lincoln in 1862 that occurred AFTER secession -- and after more than a year of war -- proving that the war was STILL NOT about emancipation, you deflecting, lying, racist dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
Changing the subject again, tranny fucker?
I didn't ask you about emancipation, you lying Confederate sympathizer.
I didn't ask you about emancipation, you lying Confederate sympathizer.
I asked you about reasons for Southern secession.
Early on proved you were a liar when you said you made no remarks about "why" the Civil War was fought, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee Jackass, and you're still lying, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee Jackass.
Early on proved you were a liar when you said you made no remarks about "why" the Civil War was fought, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee Jackass, and you're still lying, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee Jackass.
So once again IBCondomMan defines lying in a most creative way: according to IBCondomMan, any time someone doesn't post what HE wants posted, the absence of said post makes someone else a liar (but as usual, different rules apply to IBCC).
So, lying IBCondomMan, why haven't you jumped all over the freeloader who thinks he shouldn't have to pay taxes? It must mean you agree with him. It must me you now support freeloaders on the federal dole--those who take advantages of federal benefits but refuse to pay taxes. Where is your outrage? Where is your consistency? By your own definition of lying you should be calling for his castration!
But no, IBCondomMan is nothing if not a hypocrite.
Have a wonderful day as you eat your Food Stamp cheese food in your "man cave", working very hard to keep the real world away.
